- 11 -
her employer had acquired new facilities distant from Stockton,
petitioner agreed to a series of temporary assignments requiring
her to travel substantial distances from Stockton. Her
supervisor repeatedly promised her reassignment to a facility in
the Stockton area.
Petitioner had established her home near her place of
employment and only accepted temporary assignments outside that
area on the promise of reassignment within the Stockton area.
She had no reason to disbelieve her supervisor during the year in
issue. In a later year, when she did cease to believe the
promises of her supervisor, she changed her place of employment.
Under these circumstances, in our view throughout the year in
issue petitioner properly regarded the Stockton vicinity as the
metropolitan area where she “lives and normally works”.
Therefore, even under respondent’s own revenue ruling, and the
rule advocated by respondent in this case, petitioner correctly
deducted transportation expenses incurred in going between
Stockton and her temporary work sites at Novato, Napa, and Yuba
City to the extent such expenses are substantiated.
Respondent’s reliance on Aldea v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2000-136, is unwarranted since the circumstances there were
entirely different from the present case. In Aldea, we stated:
Petitioner has not established any business reason
for living in Yuba City; her decision to live there was
entirely personal. * * * The record does not indicate
that petitioner ever worked in, had the prospect of
work in, or had any other business tie to Yuba City.
The union hall where petitioner received her job
assignments was in Sacramento, which is south of Yuba
City, and all of petitioner’s work sites were south of
Sacramento.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011